'Holes' in LR maps - how to describe land and when missing from LR mapping?

Waiting for an internal review by Land Registry of their handling of this request.

Dear Land Registry,

Request Title/summary within scope.

I am writing to make an open government request for all the
information to which I am entitled under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.

Please send me recorded information, which includes information
held on computers, in emails and in printed or handwritten
documents as well as images, video and audio recordings.

If this request is too wide or unclear, and you require a
clarification, I would be grateful if you could contact me as I
understand that under the Act, you are required to advise and
assist requesters.(Section 16 / Regulation 9).

If my request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify
all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I
will also expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve
the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to
charge excessive fees.

If any of this information is already in the public domain, please
can you direct me to it, with page references and URLs if
necessary.

Please confirm or deny whether the requested information is held ( section (Section 1(1)(a) and consider whether information should be provided under section 1(1)(b), or whether it is subject to an exemption in Part II of the Act.

If the release of any of this information is prohibited on the
grounds of breach of confidence, I ask that you supply me with
copies of the confidentiality agreement and remind you that
information should not be treated as confidential if such an
agreement has not been signed.

I would like the above information to be provided to me as
electronic copies, via WDTK. The information should be immediately
readable - and, as a freedom of Information request, not put in a PDF or any closed form, which some readers may not be able to access.

I understand that you are required to respond to my request within
the 20 working days after you receive this letter. I would be
grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received
this request.

::::::::

Please consider the ICO's Decision on the provision original documents on file, rather than newly written letters of response.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

This request does not require a letter, drafted by the external affairs department, or any other written input by reputational defence employees, and purporting to be the response to a FOIA request.

NB
Please also do not assume that the response can disclose personal information - by breaking the Data Protection Act - on a public website - as the LR has done twice before recently.

::::

The request:

A. If land exists ( you can see it, touch it and walk over it)

but is :

1. not marked as unregistered land

2. and according to LR files is not owned by anybody

3. And does not have a land registry number ( so leaving a 'hole' in LR mapping where two boundaries no longer join ).

4. Is not described as 'land next to' ( address) on LR files

How can land existing - but 'vanished ' from LR mapping - be described when enquiring of the LR why it doesn't exist in LR mapping....as - despite enquiring - I have been unable to gain a reply from the LR?

B. Since I can't get a reply to reasonable question by emailing, I would like to know if the LR has discontinued its policy of returning letters with a compliments slip - without answering them( which was the policy strategy used to cover up a LR mistake ....and for which the LR eventually had to pay out a four figure sum).

C . In addition:

1. Why doesn't the LR reply to enquiries from the public on land existing- but not mapped in LR files?

2. Is there any policy in place which means such any enquires must be ignored?

3. And is this refusal to respond to an enquiry related to the potential privatisation of the LR?

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

 

Dear J T Oakley,

 

Thank you for your email of 16 July 2016 opened on 18 July 2016
 requesting the following information under the Freedom of Information ACT
2000 (FOIA):-

 

"!A. If land exists ( you  can see it,  touch it and walk over it)

 

but is :

 

1. not marked  as unregistered land

 

2. and according to LR files is not owned by anybody

 

3.  And does not have a land registry number  ( so leaving a 'hole' in LR
mapping where two boundaries no longer join ).

 

4. Is not described as 'land next to'  ( address) on LR files

 

How  can land existing - but 'vanished ' from LR mapping - be described 
when enquiring of the LR why it doesn't exist in LR mapping....as -
despite enquiring - I have been unable to gain a reply from the LR?

 

B. Since I can't get a reply to reasonable  question by emailing,  I would
like to know if the LR has discontinued its policy of returning letters 
with a compliments slip - without answering   them( which was the policy
strategy used to cover up a LR mistake  ....and for which the LR
eventually had to pay out a four figure sum).

 

C . In addition:

 

1. Why doesn't the LR reply to enquiries from the public  on land 
existing- but not mapped in LR  files?

 

2. Is there any policy in place which means such any enquires must be
ignored?

 

3. And is this refusal to respond to an enquiry related to the potential
privatisation of  the LR?"

 

The department requires further information in order to identify and
locate the information that you have asked for. I will not be able to take
this matter further without extra information from you. In particular, it
would be useful for you to clarify which particular land you are
interested in by title number or address as you only refer to "land"
generically which is too wide. Once you have clarified your request, I
will be able to begin to process your request.  If I do not receive
clarification within three months your request will be considered to have
lapsed. (Under section 1(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a
public authority need not comply with a request unless any further
information reasonably required to locate the information is supplied).

 

If you wish to discuss any of the above, please contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Senior Corporate Information Officer

Corporate Legal and Assurance Services

Land Registry Head Office, 4th Floor, Trafalgar House, 1 Bedford Park,
Croydon, CR0 2AQ

GOV.UK | @LandRegGov | LinkedIn | Facebook

 

=============================================================================================================================

show quoted sections

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

Please note this is an Foia request as outlined above.

Not a personal request limited to one 'hole' in LR mapping,..or it would not be on the WDTK site,

So please read and address it a such.

It is your choice whether or not to comply with the Act.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

 

Dear [first name redacted] Oakley,

 

Thank you for your email of 16 July 2016 requesting the following
information under the Freedom of Information ACT 2000 (FOIA):-

 

A. If land exists (you can see it, touch it and walk over it)

but is :

1. not marked  as unregistered land

 

2. and according to LR files is not owned by anybody

 

3.  And does not have a land registry number (so leaving a 'hole' in LR
mapping where two boundaries no longer join).

 

4. Is not described as 'land next to' (address) on LR files

 

How can land existing - but 'vanished ' from LR mapping - be described 
when enquiring of the LR why it doesn't exist in LR mapping....as - 
despite enquiring - I have been unable to gain a reply from the LR?

 

B. Since I can't get a reply to reasonable  question by emailing,  I
would  like to know if the LR has discontinued its policy of returning
letters with a compliments slip - without answering them( which was the
policy  strategy used to cover up a LR mistake  ....and for which the LR 
eventually had to pay out a four figure sum).

 

C .In addition:

 

1. Why doesn't the LR reply to enquiries from the public on land

existing- but not mapped in LR  files?

 

2. Is there any policy in place which means such any enquires must be
ignored?

 

3. And is this refusal to respond to an enquiry related to the potential
privatisation of  the LR?"

 

 

Upon receipt of your request we wrote to you on 18 July as follows:

 

The department requires further information in order to identify and
locate the information that you have asked for. I will not be able to take
this matter further without extra information from you. In particular, it
would be useful for you to clarify which particular land you are
interested in by title number or address as you only refer to "land"
generically which is too wide. Once you have clarified your request, I
will be able to begin to process your request.  If I do not receive
clarification within three months your request will be considered to have
lapsed. (Under section 1(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a
public authority need not comply with a request unless any further
information reasonably required to locate the information is supplied).

 

 

On 26 July 2016 you replied as follows:

 

Please note this is an Foia request as outlined above.

Not a personal request limited to one 'hole' in LR mapping, or it would
not be on the WDTK site,

So please read and address it as such.

It is your choice whether or not to comply with the Act.

 

 

Our response to your request is as follows:

 

Under Section 1(3) of the FOIA, once the authority has informed the
requester that it requires further clarification, it will not be under any
further obligation to respond until that clarification has been provided.

 

Section 1.—(3) Where a public authority—

(a) reasonably requires further information in order to identify and
locate the information requested, and

(b) has informed the applicant of that requirement,

the authority is not obliged to comply with subsection (1) unless it is
supplied with that further information.

 

As you have not supplied further information to enable Land Registry to
identify and locate the information requested we are taking no further
action in respect of your request dated 16 July 2016. 

 

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me.

If you are dissatisfied with this response to your request, you may seek
an internal review within two months of the date of our reply. Internal
reviews will be dealt within 20 working days. If at the end of this time
we are unable to respond, we will write to you explaining the reasons and
giving you a new date. If you seek an internal review

please write to:

Louise Booth

Head of Corporate Legal Services (Core Services)

Head office

Trafalgar House

1 Bedford Park

Croydon

CR0 2AQ

Email: [1][email address]

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) within
two months of the reply for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a
decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by
Land Registry. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Senior Corporate Information Officer

Corporate Legal and Assurance Services

Land Registry Head Office, 4th Floor, Trafalgar House, 1 Bedford Park,
Croydon, CR0 2AQ

GOV.UK | @LandRegGov | LinkedIn | Facebook

 

 

 

 

Our email addresses have changed, the new format is [email address] which replaces [email address]

Land Registry is the definitive source of information for more than 24 million property titles in England and Wales. Since 1862 we have provided security and confidence in one of the most active property and mortgage markets in the world. We are working to support economic growth and data transparency as part of the Public Data Group. Find out more at www.gov.uk/land-registry

If you have received this e-mail and it was not intended for you, please let us know, and then delete it. Please treat our communications in confidence, as you would expect us to treat yours. Land Registry checks all mail and attachments for known viruses, however, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

Could you please clarify what further information are you requesting?

Clearly it cannot be personal information in an online FOIA request.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Dear Land Registry,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Land Registry's handling of my FOI request ''Holes' in LR maps - how to describe land and when missing from LR mapping?'.

Please understand this is an FOIA request- which is accessible to the public. Online.

You have already illegally put my personal details TWICE online, ( breaking the DPA) and which have had to be removed by WDTK.

The request is about the way the LR describes gaps in LR mapping, which are accessible to all the public.

Please understand a public FOIA is not a personal request and you have no refuse on the grounds that a request has to be about any particular piece of land, or particularly linked to me, or any other person.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

Dear [title redacted] Oakley,

Thank you for your email of 8 August 2016 requesting an Internal Review of Land Registry's handling of your FOI request ''Holes' in LR maps - how to describe land and when missing from LR mapping?.
Your request will be referred to one of our lawyers in the team and will be answered within twenty working days. If it appears that it will take longer than this to reach a conclusion, we will keep you informed.

If you have any queries about this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Senior Corporate Information Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Land Registry Head Office, 4th Floor, Trafalgar House, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon, CR0 2AQ
GOV.UK | @LandRegGov | LinkedIn | Facebook

===============================================================================================================================

show quoted sections

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

Please do not assume my gender to be either female or male.

Identifying information is covered by the DPA - and is a breach.

Clarification..

As a hypothetical example, and not related to any particular case and under FOIA...

If there is a a strip of land, around five metres wide, and it does not appear on LR mapping - as unregistered land, or within any property boundary, or have a seperate LR number, that would be a 'hole in LR mapping'.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Please note you have broken the DPA twice in this request.

This names four times you have broken the DPAct .

I have asked WDTK to expunge the breaches.

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

Dear J T Oakley,

Thank you for your email dated 10 August 2016.

However, I refer you to Land Registry’s letter dated 30 October 2015 and the ICO decision dated 3 May 2016.

Yours sincerely

A Barr

===================================================================================================================================

show quoted sections

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

You state:

Thank you for your email dated 10 August 2016.

However, I refer you to Land Registry’s letter dated 30 October 2015 and the ICO decision dated 3 May 2016.

Yours sincerely

A Barr

::

Thank you but do you realise that you are replying to a FOIA request made on 16 July 2016 on WDTK?

NB It's a public internet site, specifically for FOIA enquiries - which the public can read.

Publishing private data on the Internet infringes the DPA.

You have now broken the DPA four times - with the consequence that WDTK has had to remove the private information from this site.

::::

I would therefore suggest that you READ this specific July 2016 - request and follow the FOIA prescribed format.

1. You may then note that the 2015 dates that you mention preceeed this request - and thus have no relevance to it.

Unless the LR is stating that it has powers of precognition .....and can respond to a specific 2016 request - in 2015.

2. Plus - I have not sent you WDTK response on August 10.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

Dear JT Oakley

This correspondence has been reviewed again as requested by you.

1. We have answered your email dated 16 July2016. Please see our response dated 28 July 2016 as follows:.

Under Section 1(3) of the FOIA, once the authority has informed the requester that it requires further clarification, it will not be under any further obligation to respond until that clarification has been provided.

Section 1.—(3) Where a public authority—
(a) reasonably requires further information in order to identify and locate the information requested, and
(b) has informed the applicant of that requirement, the authority is not obliged to comply with subsection (1) unless it is supplied with that further information.

As you have not supplied further information to enable Land Registry to identify and locate the information requested we are taking no further action in respect of your request dated 16 July 2016.

Your subsequent correspondence has not provided further information to locate the information requested. Section 1(3)FOIA specifically entitles the authority to ask for further clarification and we are not obliged to comply with your request in the absence of such information.

2. I apologise for the typographical error in referring to 10 August not 8 August.

If you are not content with this reply you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) within two months of the reply for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by Land Registry. However, since we have already completed an internal review for this information we will not be carrying out a further one. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Andrea Barr
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Land Registry Fylde Office, Wrea Brook Court,Lytham Road, Warton, Lancs, PR4 1TE.
DD: 0300 0060877 GTN: 7 2020 60877
Email: [email address]
GOV.UK @LandRegGov LinkedIn Facebook

============================================================================================================================
From: Jt Oakley [mailto:[FOI #346221 email]]
Sent: 30 August 2016 13:56
To: Sondh, Gurmale <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - 'Holes' in LR maps - how to describe land and when missing from LR mapping? (our ref:-IR-J T Oakley-follow up)

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

You state:

Thank you for your email dated 10 August 2016.

However, I refer you to Land Registry’s letter dated 30 October 2015 and the ICO decision dated 3 May 2016.

Yours sincerely

A Barr

::

Thank you but do you realise that you are replying to a FOIA request made on 16 July 2016 on WDTK?

NB It's a public internet site, specifically for FOIA enquiries - which the public can read.

Publishing private data on the Internet infringes the DPA.

You have now broken the DPA four times - with the consequence that WDTK has had to remove the private information from this site.

::::

I would therefore suggest that you READ this specific July 2016 - request and follow the FOIA prescribed format.

1. You may then note that the 2015 dates that you mention preceeed this request - and thus have no relevance to it.

Unless the LR is stating that it has powers of precognition .....and can respond to a specific 2016 request - in 2015.

2. Plus - I have not sent you WDTK response on August 10.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

show quoted sections

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

What is the point that you wish to be clarified?

In the absence of any Sectiin 16 help and assistance I will try and explain the 'hole' in LR mapping in simple terms.

The LR maps are like jigsaws..the property boundary lines should fit with each other, if they do on household deeds- as one boundary line.

When there is a piece missing from the jigsaw, a 'hole' between two property boundary lines how does the LR ...and therefore a member of the public ....describe this missing jigsaw piece?

If the land:

1. does not have an LR reference number

(Is not described as 'land to the north/west/east/ south etc - as those parcels of land have LR reference numbers).

2. is not described as 'unregistered' on LR records

3. And lies between the boundaries in the LR mapping of two (or more ) properties - provided through its customer purchase website? ....thus a 'Hole'.

::

I hope this clarification is helpful - but the point of the request is to find out why not all land is described, (or represented with an LR reference number) on the LR mapping which is sold to the public via the LR website.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

Dear JT Oakley

We have clearly explained that unless you supply further information to enable Land Registry to identify and locate the information requested we are taking no further action. Your email of 31 August does not assist any further in this regard. Your option now is to refer the matter to the ICO if you remain dissatisfied.

Yours sincerely,

Senior Corporate Information Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Land Registry Head Office, 4th Floor, Trafalgar House, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon, CR0 2AQ
GOV.UK | @LandRegGov | LinkedIn | Facebook

===========================================================================================================================

show quoted sections

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

Thank you but whT is it that you are unsure about.

Could you please supply S16 help and assistance ?

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

You state:

In particular, it would be useful for you to clarify which particular land you are
interested in by title number or address as you only refer to "land"
generically which is too wide.

:::::::

Please note this is FOIA request.

It does not apply to any ' particular land' . Because these pieces of land have no title numbers - as I've stated.

If it applied to a particular piece of land - then there would be no need to ask why these particular pieces of land ( and logically I cannot know how many ' holes' by their addresses there are in LR mapping - because I have no access to the whole of LR mapping)

:::

Once again ....

This request concerns pieces of UK land which have NO LR reference numbers.

It isn't about a particular piece of land ...that would be a personal and private request and NOT an FOIA request.

However, if you are continuing to treat an FOIA request as a personal matter, requiring personal and specific information.. ( and I would remind you that yiu have broken the DPA twice in this request already - my personal information has had to be removed by WDTK -again ,..after a previous request when the LR again broke the DPA twice ) on a public site, then yes, I have no option to refer the request to the ICO.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Dear JT Oakley,

I feel your frustrations .
I ended up researching using archive newspapers at my local library / Lincoln Archives / British Archives / Definative Maps / Maps on Estate Agents Literature for local properties for sale / a local Architect / local people and people who previously had owned properties here on this postcode .

What l found out was staggering.

East Lindsley District Council would have been aware of the " changes " attempted to my already " registered title " , as firstly their " maps " printed in old newspapers going back to the 1960's , always had the ELDC neatly placed over the land of the "access / green strip", in effect hiding it. Secondly because of the " ditches" here in very flat Lincolnshire , rates were paid on the maintainance of these ditches. We are expected to believe no one noticed the land mass on some 54 acres alterered to less than the 3.42 acres recorded around my actual home.

And the fact the two plans lodged at Kingston upon Hull Land Registry were two same plans of the altered / reduced and meant to be 3.42 acres.

Further there was a nearly identical sized piece of land , likewise running from the road alongside already said " access / green strip" , that on further research was confirmed to have been in " receivership" following the bankruptcy of a firm of builders.

This means creditors were denied funds they were legally entitled to that our courts in effect have let these people down.

On this particular piece of land , it was claimed by someone who also tries to put in to claim the " access / green strip" , back in October 2007 on the tail of finding out about my neighbours Mr & Mrs L ' s claim.

Following his writing to Kingston upon Hull Land Registry in October 2007 stating this was his registered land, he then in November 2007 went on record to contest the claim of Mr & Mrs L, then changed to siding with them , because Mr L worked in planning at ELDC and he recieved his assistance to get planning passed on the other strip of land , and even borrowed council equipment of TWO OCCASSIONS at weekends to remove mature trees and hedges some twenty odd feet high, before the AHMLR hearing of the 28 th & 29 th May 2009. This is land owns by myself and Mr W , and the damage caused , means these trees will not be replaced in mine or Mr W's lifetime.

Pergury was committed at the AHMLR hearing by Mr & Mrs L and the person who had help from Mr L to get planning permission.

But when no one looks at the paperwork evidence and one Skegness CID Officer poses as a Crown Prosecution Officer meant to be seconded to the Police to look into Land Registry cases, just where does the buck stop?

I have the advice of the head of the economic crime unit here in Lincolnshire that was over- seed by Keith Bristow previously in his role heading The National Crime Agency , and that was Land Registry had no right to have my conveyance document . Even then it took Elizabeth Derrington of The Independent Complaints Review pannicking in 2013 , after a solicitor contacted Land Registry on my behalf ( it appears to have been a mistake where a junior at this Solicitor's acting on her own) , and her directing Land Registry to return my conveyance document to me with a compensation offer of " £250-00p.
The high court judges decision in February 2012, states quite clearly that if a miscarriage of justice has occurred it must be put right and the legal advice l received was the theft of my conveyance document amounts to such a miscarriage of justice.

So I have been sent all round the houses including a twelve month delay by The Information Commissioners Office and see-sawed between the " disengagement processes " designed to prevent redress.

In simple terms- the lands ( access / green strip / orchard / further fifty acres with property on it, was already registered and formed part of the registered title l purchased, as has been confirmed to me by a manager at Inland Revenue and obviously the bank has foreclosed on a mortgage in 1994 , claiming everything in order to be able to sell the whole title to the vendors, even to using a facsimile of the " Land Deed" as the vendors conveyance document.

Even the electricity broad ( Yorkshire Electricity now Northerngrid) ans Rentokil , were involved . The details of someone witnessing the electricity Wayleave were traced onto the document that is now excepted to be my conveyance document and the address details for the damp proof course document that l had to have installed for the mortgage conditions were wrong to match the wrong address lodged at Kingston upon Hull Land Registry.
Further things on this conveyance document is the fact my solely paying all monies for what is a registered title is recorded wrongly , making it appear someone else had an equal claim and a statute is referred to that was not in place for some months after the date of the signing of the conveyance document.

If you take the time to read Michael Joseph's " Conveyancing Fraud" and " Lawyers Can Seriously Damage Your Health" , both written many years ago by a Solicitor , it illustrates all these loopholes and involvements , that are exactly the same as l have experienced.

It would appear there is nothing protected or sacred when financial benefit is possible.

I can only draw the conclusion that employees at Land Registry right up to their Chief Executive's / Corporate Lawyer / head of Legal Services and their present Information Officer Gurmale Sondh , are all on the payroll that includes councils across the country .

It's interesting that Land Registry now operate a " Visitors Centre" at Swansea Land Registry when Powy' s Council won the tender for handling complaints against the UK's QUARTER OF A MILION ESTATE AGENTS.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Thank you D Smith,

The LR simply can't seem to understand this is not a personal request for file information, relating to one property

My understanding is that there are numerous holes in LR mapping -not described by WA numbers as the usual property mapping sold to the public.

Seemingly the LR is trying to divert a descriptive LR filing procedural request to one which considers a particular location, or piece of land by demanding a clarification of where these undescribed on LR file pieces of land are.

It's logic defeats me - if I knew how the LR references these pieces of land missing on LR maps , then I wouldn't need to make the request.

And if it's information that other people have given me (in confidence) about this problem -that would satisfy the LR criteria for a response, then I would be breaking their confidentiality and possibly the DPA.

::::

Therefore the 'clarification' demanded ( and I'm still not sure what more the LR wants - if only it would give me some help and assistance on this because I think I've made it absolutely plain that this isn't about specific locations )it just seems to be a method of delaying a response - or hoping that it will just go away.

I have referred it to the ICO.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Dear JT Oakley,

I might be able to help you with the recognised terminology used when Land Registry " write off" pieces of land involved in boundaries. I say this as Mr L , whom l have already previously referred to ; had a conversation many years ago with a previous owner of my property .
Mr L. worked in planning at East Lindsley District Council , on " Graphical Interfacing " , his previous work being for Radio St Peters , for the " Coastguard " on the overhead lines. Basically the equivillant of a BT Engineer.
When he was at loggerheads with the previous owner , a conversation took place regarding the non- exceptance of a curved boundary , that Mr L said had to be straight from the road , only he also used another word that is more technically accurate.
When this previous owner was heading for a divorce and not paying the mortgage, he apparently got Mr L to put up a listening device under the eaves here to eavesdrop on his wife and her talks with her divorce lawyers.
A BT Engineer l called out , found this device still in place, removed it and showed me.
You see it has been imperative for the players involved with Land Registry Staff in this property / land fraud ( of some proportion) , to constantly monitor me . I kept reporting the error in the caution register that under the LRA's ( including LRA2002) , afforded me " rectification of the register" as the recorded proprietary owner, and also reporting errors / mistakes with the legal paperwork for someone else and the mistakes over the village name and postcode together with the wrong reference number with Legal Service Commission ( which by the way , on my saying it was incorrect to Land Registry Staff on the 27 th October 2002 , they actually altered it by writing next to it). But they all needed to be sure l was totally unaware that no one was correcting things. And this was the role Mr L was performing in listening in on my landline.
I am confident enough to state to you here in the Public Domain that there exists familiarity between the Land Registry Offices , the staff of the Legal Aid Board ( for charges against property / land) , what was the staff of The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry and the councils in England & Wales.
If Mr L was sure of his quoting the wording used to the previous owner here, then it must still exist .
I know in my case no land regarding the boundary l refer to being talked about all these years ago was sold to Mr L , yet he produced less than convincing paperwork for the AHMLR and even less convincing ariel photographs that were actually stills taken from moving film and had been obviously photo shopped.
These kind of stills taken from running film are " at an angle" ( the technical term is - " oblique") and items in these photos did not visably correspond as they were not items photographed at an angle, and added after.
The Deputy Adjudicator for the AHMLR was a commissioner for LSC , and he breached his barristers oath by not declaring his conflict of interest or that of his live in partner ( Ruth Wyatt, LSC).
He allowed an unprobated ( not a legal document) into evidence.
The AHMLR do not involve themselves in " wills" or " probate".
Wording of " whatever or wherever " was referred to , to mean the writer of this unprobated will, had he owned the " green strip" , would have left it to his daughter ( she is not his daughter by blood or adoption).
As DS Ian Jarman, head of the Economic Crime Unit said to me after seeing my " Land Registry Registration Certificate " with the " green strip " shown in red as registered land with my title :- " he would have had to own the land in the first place to leave it to anyone".
Land Registry deliberately constructed falsely a case to refer to the AHMLR , to attempt to give away registered land ,kinda sums it up really , what the UK Public perceive to be a friendly public body is really your worst enemy when it comes to the security and peace of mind of your home and assets.
You heard it here and l am prepared to show the massive caseload of evidence l have , that one retired Police Officer of over thirty - years standing wrote on my behalf in his position as chief - executive of " Just Lincs" ( funded by the government and the human rights commission), to ELDC stating if they "continued to refuse to look at the evidence Diana Smith has then it could be perceived they were committing maladministration in public office".
Land Registry think they can walk on water and knit fog, it's about time the UK Public realised the dastardly deeds these miscreants commit with no thought to the harms / injuries / losses and sheer frustration and stresses they cause.
You only have to look at the comments published by Kingston upon Hulls Customer Service Manager ( Claire Holland) to her friends and colleagues , about the Lightning Strike that hit my home and split it in two :-
" I owe God one ".
The Lightning Strike came about because of the re- routing of the original path of the laying of the electricity lines, with no one including my acting solicitor telling me.
This is the same solicitor who Claire Holland telephoned on the 23 rd October 2007 , to arrange their both not disclosing the evidence of the fraudulent declarations of Mr & Mrs L and the fact it was this same solcitor who had witnessed them as well as his instructing and negotiating with Yorkshire Electricity Board behind my back .

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Thank you Diana.

It does seem that the Land Registry is in something of a mess.

If you want the answer to reasonable question, the LR lawyers tend to refuse your request - presumably fearing some kind of imaginary law suit. Rather than just apply themselves to the FoiAct.

( I have no legal gripe with the LR) . I'm just interested in how it operates, since missing pieces of hand in LR napping don't seem to be covered in the online information it provides for members of the public.

Perhaps it's because it had to pay me £££££'s before ( plus court interest) for resisting a boundary of my property without telling me, and then refusing to answer my letters to ask why.

Goodness knows what will happen to this boundary minefield if it is privatised.

There are so many 'outs' in its T&C's and so much mystification of its processes, it's difficult not to become cynical as to how it regards it's public with the sort of gaming ( and putting private information onto the Internet) that you see above,

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org